SUBAL CHANDRA SAMAL Vs. SAILESH KUMAR PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has moved this Court in revision with a prayer to quash the proceeding in Misc. Case No. 48 of 1994 arising out of a petition under S.94, Cr. P.C., files by the opposite party for recovery of his vehicle from the possession of the present petitioner on the ground that the said proceeding is bad in the eye of law.

(2.) The fact leading to the filing of the present application is that the opposite party is the owner of one truck bearing No. D.S.B.1132, which was hypothecated to the United Commercial Bank, Chowki Branch. He having failed to look after the affairs of the said vehicle properly approached the petitioner with the proposal to well the same on condition that the petitioner would make a down payment of Rs. 1,44,000/- to the opposite party and the latter would forthwith hand over the possession of the vehicle together with R.C.Book and other documents and would allow the petitioner to operate the said vehicle. The ownership of the vehicle would, however, remain with the opposite party. It was further stipulated that out of the income so generated by operating the said vehicle, the petitioner would pay the outstanding amount due and payable to the Banker by the opposite party because of hypothecation. Accordingly, the petitioner made a down payment of Rs. 1,44,000/- to the opposite party and took possession of the vehicle in question and started operating the same. He also went on liquidating the loan to the Sanker as stipulated. Subsequently, the dispute arose between the parties and the parties received the same and executed a registered document on 15-11-1993. The said agreement contained terms and conditions which were stipulated earlier orally between the parties.

(3.) While the said agreement was in force and the petitioner was operating the vehicle, the opposite party filed a petition under S.94, Cr. P.C., out of which Misc. Case No. 48/94 has arisen praying to seize the said vehicle on the ground that the present petitioner was trying to sell the said vehicle to a third party much to the detriment of the opposite party. On the day of filing of the said petition, learned J.M.F.C.Jaleswar, by the impugned order dated 13-7-1994 granted the prayer and asked the Officer-in-charge, Bhogral Police-station to report compliance forthwith. Pursuant thereto the said vehicle was seized from the possession of the petitioner on 18-8-1994 and the latter the learned Magistrate made over possession of the said vehicle to the opposite party on a zimanama on execution of a Bond.